Everyone Deserves to Make a Living Wage Regardless of Job/Status

[BeepBoo]

i.e "if you win society and genetic lottery, then you are all set."

Pretty much, but I don't see that as a problem. The reality is that those two things have an enormous impact on your potential as a person. Your potential as a person has an enormous impact on what you can realistically do for society.

[Masark]

Pretty much, but I don't see that as a problem. The reality is that those two things have an enormous impact on your potential as a person. Your potential as a person has an enormous impact on what you can realistically do for society.

And capitalism marches backwards to justifying aristocracy.

You gonna claim the divine right of CEOs next?

[Stelio Kontos]

Pretty much, but I don't see that as a problem. The reality is that those two things have an enormous impact on your potential as a person. Your potential as a person has an enormous impact on what you can realistically do for society.

Cool, so if genetics should be the determining factor, assuming I am likely bigger and stronger than you, should I be able to take a hammer to your skull and take your shit? I mean, if winning the genetic lottery matters, then it's not a big jump to "might makes right".

[kamuimac]

Cool, so if genetics should be the determining factor, assuming I am likely bigger and stronger than you, should I be able to take a hammer to your skull and take your shit? I mean, if winning the genetic lottery matters, then it's not a big jump to "might makes right".

you shouldnt because that would be a crime.

what you could do is for example become clothes model , athlete , fitness couch etc if you are geneticaly predisposed to that unlike other person who with weak body wont achieve anything there.

this way you would use your potential to achieve success in life.

[Katchii]

[SNIP]

Then we fundamentally disagree on the value of human life.

I don't disagree with you that SOME people are worthless, from a monetary viewpoint, but every life has value and no one who isn't doing anything wrong and who's only "crime" is to be born into poverty and is honestly working to fix that yet still can't deserves to die.

Yeah, that's what I expected when it seemed like you agreed with me. It sounds to me like you were intending to say "the former" when you said "the latter".

Actively seeking to harm someone else is in an entirely different universe of bad versus just being apathetic towards someone's existence. In one case (apathy) if the person is capable of living on their own, they get to. In the other (hunting), even if the person is capable of living on their own, you hunt them down out of hate and off them regardless of their ability to self-sustain.

As I said, it depends entirely on the situation. And it has nothing to do with the victims ability to self sustain or not it has to do with the emotional state or emotional ability of the person doing the hunting vs the person with apathy. Based on what you've been saying, you'd be OK with someone hunting down and killing someone you deem worthless to society (aside from the whole, it being a crime thing).

But I'm done discussing with you. Nothing you said has changed my mind on what you remind me of, in fact it's even more so now. You're the epitome of a pompous cartoon villain. And obviously, nothing is going to alter your frame of mind. So discussion is pointless.

[Hilhen7]

Any form of obligation (even in small parts) of like "hey, just give us 10% of your efforts as a thanks for existing here" is slavery.


It's not circular in the least. People have different desires and there's different levels of availability of resources/capability to meet those. Hence: humans all have different levels of value to all other humans. The culmination of all that is the driver for value. If I can do something someone wants and no one else can do, I'm more valuable. In the same way it's easy to see where someone would be more valuable, it's easy to see where someone would be less valuable or not valuable at all.

If your arguing that we should not be taxed to support people that do not make enough to survive, shouldn't you actually support a higher minimum wage. You know so taxpayers don't have to subsidize the cost of business owners...?

In the case of value. Lets provide everyone with the same free college education and give them the tools so that they can actually attend, that way we can find out where everyone's true value lies....

[BeepBoo]

If your arguing that we should not be taxed to support people that do not make enough to survive, shouldn't you actually support a higher minimum wage. You know so taxpayers don't have to subsidize the cost of business owners...?

No. If people's labor type is only valued at under poverty wages, there's other factors at play besides "taxes are subsidizing!"

In the case of value. Lets provide everyone with the same free college education and give them the tools so that they can actually attend, that way we can find out where everyone's true value lies....

You're not supposed to have access to the same resources and have the same opportunities. That's literally part of fitness. Say I have a kid whose IQ is only average. Now, as a parent, I have a desire to see my kid be successful and have an easier/better life than others. If I can compensate for that lack of intelligence by providing superior privilege and opportunity by sacrificing my own resources, my kid can still likely turn out with a better lot than someone who might have higher potential, but no access to resources. I don't have any interest in seeing other kids turn out better than mine.

"True value" is a combination of more than just innate latent potential.

Innate potential
Degree to which you enable that potential
Willingness and dedication to use that potential
Access to resources and opportunities
Access to the building blocks of life that allow you to develop properly

Mandating everyone provide those things to everyone who can't get them otherwise is flying in the face of being able to use those acquired privileges to the fullest extent of personal desire.

I'm not about equity. I'm about letting people take full advantage of their positions they can find for themselves in whatever way they can, with the exception of a few key rules that I think should be the only "laws" on the books.

[Hilhen7]

No. If people's labor type is only valued at under poverty wages, there's other factors at play besides "taxes are subsidizing!"


You're not supposed to have access to the same resources and have the same opportunities. That's literally part of fitness. Say I have a kid whose IQ is only average. Now, as a parent, I have a desire to see my kid be successful and have an easier/better life than others. If I can compensate for that lack of intelligence by providing superior privilege and opportunity by sacrificing my own resources, my kid can still likely turn out with a better lot than someone who might have higher potential, but no access to resources. I don't have any interest in seeing other kids turn out better than mine.

"True value" is a combination of more than just innate latent potential.

Innate potential
Degree to which you enable that potential
Willingness and dedication to use that potential
Access to resources and opportunities
Access to the building blocks of life that allow you to develop properly

Mandating everyone provide those things to everyone who can't get them otherwise is flying in the face of being able to use those acquired privileges to the fullest extent of personal desire.

I'm not about equity. I'm about letting people take full advantage of their positions they can find for themselves in whatever way they can, with the exception of a few key rules that I think should be the only "laws" on the books.

So basically for those in a position of wealth and power it is okay to use any means necessary to give their children advantages over the poor. Lets face it, the rich are the ones in power, therefore they can push for laws and put systems into place that will benefit them at the cost of the poor.

But god forbid the poor organize and go on mass strikes or use strength of arms to take what they need?

I mean just compare the punishment for "white color" crimes vs other crimes...

[jonnysensible]

Say I have a kid whose IQ is only average.

Judging by your post history its a strong possiblity it will be below average
[Infraction]

[BeepBoo]

So basically for those in a position of wealth and power it is okay to use any means necessary to give their children advantages over the poor. Lets face it, the rich are the ones in power, therefore they can push for laws and put systems into place that will benefit them at the cost of the poor.

No, slapping regs into place that benefit them or give them monopolies, writing in policies that cover their asses "too big to fail" "print us money fedz!" etc are not ok. That's why I have such a limited view of what government should be for.

But god forbid the poor organize and go on mass strikes or use strength of arms to take what they need?

Take up arms is not ok, but organizing a mass strike? Sure. Just realize freedom would also say people have the ability to break that picket line, not join the union, etc. But trying to organize amongst the work force to collude is fine.

I mean just compare the punishment for "white color" crimes vs other crimes...

You seem to think I might be ok with those differences. No. Besides that, the biggest thing "the rich" have going for them is the idea that ideas are property, which I'm vehemently against.

Judging by your post history its a strong possiblity it will be below average

Considering my wife's and mine and how genetics usually works, you're talking out your ass. Sorry you somehow wish the most capable and the most intelligent were universally bound to some similar concepts on morality, but the two are unrelated.

[kamuimac]

So basically for those in a position of wealth and power it is okay to use any means necessary to give their children advantages over the poor. Lets face it, the rich are the ones in power, therefore they can push for laws and put systems into place that will benefit them at the cost of the poor.

But god forbid the poor organize and go on mass strikes or use strength of arms to take what they need?

I mean just compare the punishment for "white color" crimes vs other crimes...

and who is forbiding them that ? they can always go on strike. only later they have to face consequences like getting fired /shrug. its their own free choice.

and ofc its ok to give your children any advantage that you can . poor kids have access to their own means - like mandatory public education , access to library , internet , trying to get scholarships etc etc . internet is especially such powerfull tool . i only could wish to have such access to textbooks , courses etc when i was a kid/teen - i rememeber once seeking for few hours on various websites to find literlay only 2 textbooks (and they were in english which is not my native language) teaching how to learn japanese . nowadays ? kids have free apps in their phones and literal f...ck ton of textbooks aviable on web - not speaking about things like udemy / skillshare with its huuuge access to cheap online courses.

imo west is loosing with east exackly because they percive nepotism as something bad instead seeing all the positives it gives . aka kids of MD/lawer grows up in the culture that is typical to that job/household so he is likely to be much better at that in future then some random kid of blue collar worker. Hell - imagine if family gathered varius books over 2-3 generations - and kid from youngest age has fast easy access to them - shoudl parents forbid him from reading them to give poor kids equal oportunities ?

thats social/cultural capital that very often whole generations pass down and preserve. thats one of basis of capitalism which is very often forgotten as people focus only on inheriting money - not speaking about inheriting intelectual capital etc etc

[jonnysensible]

and who is forbiding them that ? they can always go on strike. only later they have to face consequences like getting fired /shrug. its their own free choice.

and ofc its ok to give your children any advantage that you can . poor kids have access to their own means - like mandatory public education , access to library , internet , trying to get scholarships etc etc .

imo west is loosing with east exackly because they percive nepotism as something bad instead seeing all the positives it gives . aka kids of MD/lawer grows up in the culture that is typical to that job/household so he is likely to be much better at that in future then some random kid of blue collar worker.

thats social/cultural capital that very often whole generations pass down and preserve.

you got any evidence for any of this that isnt 'my gut feeling'. I mean you are pretty much advocating eugenics and a caste system.

[kamuimac]

you got any evidence for any of this that isnt 'my gut feeling'. I mean you are pretty much advocating eugenics and a caste system.

nah those are solely my observations and thoughts from past 20 years of life experience

eugenics if forbidden topic here so cant tell you my thoughts on it.

and caste system done correckly could potentialy not be bad (as it gives people incentives to get better instead be lazy and achiev nothing in life) - as long as tools for going up in caste piramide is there and west has more then ennough of those tools already in place - some of which i mentioned in my post .

notice that we have remains of such system - just based on income - you have working poor , middle , upper middle , rich etc "classes" already - just not defined by other factors then how much money they posses.

either way - west is loosing atm badly to east where they dont bother dealing with fake nonsensical problems only focus on developement of their society as whole .

[Ghostpanther]

Na. Depends on how lazy a person is. Some jobs are temporary ones anyway and that is how some want to stay in. Only working during certain times and days of the year. If you want a better job, pick the right field and then work hard to get the right education for it. And it does not mean college in all cases. Plumbers, electricians, mechanics, welders and even sewer line cleaners, can make a lot of money.

[kamuimac]

Na. Depends on how lazy a person is. Some jobs are temporary ones anyway and that is how some want to stay in. Only working during certain times and days of the year. If you want a better job, pick the right field and then work hard to get the right education for it. And it does not mean college in all cases. Plumbers, electricians, mechanics, welders and even sewer line cleaners, can make a lot of money.

ye but those require certain skills.

while some of people have 0 skills and 0 will to obtain them .

and then they would have to work ?

living of social benefits is easier

[Hammerfest]

So you believe in slave labour??

I believe it's okay for a kid to get a part-time job if he/she wants one in the US. I'm not big on kids getting "allowances."

[kail]

So do people that say stuff like this support welfare???

Like I wont argue against raises in minimum wages but the whole living wage excludes welfare benefits right???

Ideally yes. Until the job market becomes too automated to the point that the human element is barely needed, it should be the job market that keeps society turning instead of government distributing the wealth.

- - - Updated - - -

Na. Depends on how lazy a person is. Some jobs are temporary ones anyway and that is how some want to stay in. Only working during certain times and days of the year. If you want a better job, pick the right field and then work hard to get the right education for it. And it does not mean college in all cases. Plumbers, electricians, mechanics, welders and even sewer line cleaners, can make a lot of money.

If you're talking about seasonal and other part-time jobs, sure they shouldn't award a similar livable wage as a full-time job. What makes zero sense is someone working fulltime for someone (40+ hours) and is unable to live from that labor.

[Easo]

Too much. A perpetual safety net invalidates society's ability to tell someone they're worthless. Being worthless to society, especially if you need to depend on said society, should effectively be a death sentence or have a timer unless you can convince individuals to cover your @$$, acutely.

So as Endus said - slaughter the worthless, except indirectly, so your hands "would be clean". Ok, Adolf. It also seems you are close, very close to talking about eugenics, which goes so very well together with the first point...
Tell me, Mr. Potential, are you aware that not having enough food while growing up fucks with kids brains? Hard to "realise your potential" when you are hungry, so to speak. What about it? Starve the kids if their parents can't afford enough food?

Also, you said taxation is slavery. Not sure if I saw you talking about how countries and the respective services would work, but regardless - how do you expect firefighters, police, medics, schools, etc. will be paid for? Roads kept up? And so on...?

[BeepBoo]

So as Endus said - slaughter the worthless, except indirectly, so your hands "would be clean". Ok, Adolf. It also seems you are close, very close to talking about eugenics, which goes so very well together with the first point...

No for either of those. They would work themselves out in whatever measure they would. Also, you ignored the second non-bold part entirely, which is incredibly material to the discussion. People have good will. People do things out of kindness. People would care for their retarded kid for that kid's entire life. People would take care of their worthless grandparents who didn't manage to stockpile or save enough for retirement. Etc. You just don't like the fact that some people would fall through the cracks.

Tell me, Mr. Potential, are you aware that not having enough food while growing up fucks with kids brains? Hard to "realise your potential" when you are hungry, so to speak. What about it? Starve the kids if their parents can't afford enough food?

I'm not starving them, but yes. Children are the sole responsibility of their parents, ultimately. I'm pretty sure I already covered the part where idiot parents shouldn't have kids and that they don't really care about their kids if they have kids while being useless, because it's easy to know how that turns out.

Also, you said taxation is slavery. Not sure if I saw you talking about how countries and the respective services would work, but regardless - how do you expect firefighters, police, medics, schools, etc. will be paid for? Roads kept up? And so on...?

Oh, right, because none of that kind of stuff existed without mandatory taxes before in the history of man. Because it's impossible for that stuff to exist without mandatory taxes. Also, just because I said any form of tax is something tangentially related to slavery doesn't mean I'm all for 100% removal of gov't or that they have no responsibility. I'm just much stiffer when it comes to the role of gov't and what level of "social contracting" I'm willing to accept.

[Easo]

No for either of those. They would work themselves out in whatever measure they would. Also, you ignored the second non-bold part entirely, which is incredibly material to the discussion. People have good will. People do things out of kindness. People would care for their retarded kid for that kid's entire life. People would take care of their worthless grandparents who didn't manage to stockpile or save enough for retirement. Etc. You just don't like the fact that some people would fall through the cracks.

I'm not starving them, but yes. Children are the sole responsibility of their parents, ultimately. I'm pretty sure I already covered the part where idiot parents shouldn't have kids and that they don't really care about their kids if they have kids while being useless, because it's easy to know how that turns out.


Oh, right, because none of that kind of stuff existed without mandatory taxes before in the history of man. Because it's impossible for that stuff to exist without mandatory taxes. Also, just because I said any form of tax is something tangentially related to slavery doesn't mean I'm all for 100% removal of gov't or that they have no responsibility. I'm just much stiffer when it comes to the role of gov't and what level of "social contracting" I'm willing to accept.

I dont like you being wannabe Adolf. Also, I love how you changed your tone and suddenly started to talk about kindness, but at the same time labeling people as worthless. Do tell me, what worth do you have? Who decided said worth? You? xD Because clearly it was not society.

Ah, got it, let's starve children, it is, after all, their parents fault, always, because they are idiots, it can't be anything else ever, riiight?

You did not answer the question how you will pay for those. Because yes, pretty much that always has been paid for taxes, one way or another.